Trump Raises Tariffs to 15% After SCOTUS Ruling
“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs…”
President Donald Trump is not retreating after the Supreme Court struck down his tariff framework under IEEPA. He is escalating, raising the global tariff floor from 10 percent to 15 percent and shifting to statutes the Court did not touch.
In a new Truth Social post, Trump announced that the 10 percent worldwide tariff would immediately be raised to 15 percent, grounding the move in authorities he says are “fully allowed, and legally tested.”
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) February 21, 2026
“Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again – GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
The move comes less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, rejecting the administration’s statutory interpretation. The ruling was limited to IEEPA and did not disturb other trade statutes.
Trump responded during a press briefing by criticizing the majority and praising the dissent.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court — absolutely ashamed — for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”
But beyond the rhetoric was a pivot that now defines the next phase.
During that same briefing, Trump made clear the administration had alternative statutory routes ready.
“Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place… Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
The 10 percent Section 122 baseline is now being pushed to 15 percent.
SCOTUS shut down the IEEPA route. The White House immediately shifted to statutes that more explicitly authorize trade remedies. Section 232 national security tariffs remain. Section 301 tariffs remain. Section 122 now anchors the global baseline.
As we noted yesterday, the ruling narrowed one statutory path. It did not eliminate tariff authority altogether.
That is the practical takeaway.
The Supreme Court restricted one tool. Trump responded by raising the worldwide tariff floor to 15 percent and anchoring it to a different statute.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Two solutions to the “illegal” tariff problem with regard to refunding the collected payments:
1.
Amounts paid in accordance with the illegal tariffs can be used as a credit to pay the new (presumptively legal) tariffs. Once any payer’s credit has been exhausted, the payer then begins to pay the tariff out-of-pocket.
This works with the income tax (we are allowed to use taxes withheld as credit against taxes owed), it can be made to work with tariffs.
2.
Alternatively, the new (presumptively legal) tariffs can be applied retroactively (not unconstitutional – retroactive taxes are frequently contemplated by State and local governments and are not barred by the prohibition on ex post facto laws.*) such that the amounts owed equal the amounts already paid. This will make the question of refunds moot.
*Don’t make me post again my explanation of why the clause only applies to criminal law.
But but what about all the idiots clamoring for their “refunds”.
(That don’t understand how taxes or commerce work)
They understand correctly that since the tariffs were unlawful, unauthorized by Congress, the money was STOLEN, and they can sue for its return.
And no, retroactive application of new tariffs under different statutes would not solve the problem. First, the tariffs that were struck down could not have been imposed under the different statutes, or they would have been in the first place. The only reason Trump relied on his bogus reading of IEEA was that there was no other statute that would allow those tariffs.
Second, while Congress can, in limited circumstances, retroactively amend existing tax law (but not impose a brand new tax), there’s no case saying that the president can do so.
Stolen? Who could argue with such an erudite summation of the present state of the case? Jimmy Kimmel couldn’t have defined the issue better.
It is interesting to watch that, as the situation becomes ever more desperate for the left the mask slips more and more frequently.
How long, one wonders, before Milhouse is shrieking his love for his communist masters openly?
Dang, Milhouse. You sometimes seem to not read what I write, but rather read into it what you want so argue against. For instance, nowhere did I say the POTUS should impose the retroactive tariff. In fact, when I wrote the comment, I had Congress in mind. Everything that I proposed could be done by Congress.
Some would say Trump is playing chess instead of checkers. I say Trump is playing the same game he always plays: ‘My stones are bigger than yours.’
Now let’s hope scotus doesn’t feff up the upcoming birth right citizen case. ‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Fall in, Roberts!
Yeah. I can’t decide whether this move is Trumpian “art of the deal,” or Barrywise “they brought a knife so I brought a gun.”
Or both? 🤔
It’s neither. Trump has no choice but to obey the law and stop charging these tariffs that Congress never authorized him to impose. He’s free to impose and increase those tariffs that Congress did authorize him to.
This is exactly the same thing that Biden did when his original student loan forgiveness scheme was struck down, because SCOTUS said he was misinterpreting the statute he was relying on. He immediately complied with the ruling, but told his lawyers to look for some other statute that would allow at least some loans to be forgiven, and he implemented a new program based on that other statute. Had SCOTUS said he was misinterpreting that statute as well, he would have looked for a third statute. This was completely legitimate, and that is exactly what Trump is now doing.
“It’s neither. Trump has no choice but to obey the law”
You miss my point.
If Trump had these same fallback meat-axe alternatives available to him — the ones that all those other presidents used — why did he bother using the novel approach that risked being shut down by SCOTUS? Was it a case of, “this is my first offer — shut it down, and you won’t like my second?”
Well we already know Democrats have a 3-0 head start on this one.
It won’t. It will rule 9-0 against Trump.
No one, including you, believes that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction. Anyone claiming to believe this is deliberately lying. If they were not subject to US jurisdiction then they would have immunity, just like diplomats, and could not be arrested for anything they did, could not be seized for deportation, could not be taxed, sued, or compelled to testify in court. You obviously don’t believe any of those things are true of them, since you support ICE arresting them. So you can’t claim they’re not subject to US jurisdiction.
Uh uh. That’s why the Court granted review. Because no one could even consider that the children of the mass of trespassing illegals are not citizens
Your fundamental error, Milhouse, is apparently misapplying a limited modern understanding of jurisdiction in the context of certain offenses to the scope of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as employed in the 14th Amendment. It’s closer to the truth that no one who drafted and passed and lived in the 19th century ever believed the 14th amendment would apply to the offspring of a mass of trespassing illegal aliens. And it is absolutely true that the SCt has NEVER held that the child of an illegal is entitled to birthright citizenship.
But you may ultimately be correct anyway. The misinterpretation of the Constitution, federal statutes, and precedent has a long tradition at the Supreme Court.
And besides, it would be FAR from the first time that SCOTUS ever said, “You know all these previous rulings? They were just wrong. We’re changing it.” And if you don’t play that lottery, you’ll never win it.
That’s right, people deliberately and elaborately avoiding the legal jurisdiction of the US are accepting that they are subject to it.
Rrrrrrrght, Democrat.
Take your lies back to the Democrat cesspool you live, eat and defecate in.
Plenty of tariff authority in statutes outside IEEPA for the Executive to use….and the Trump Admin was prepared to implement them should SCOTUS not see IEEPA their way. The Trump Admin will continue to use tariffs as leverage to secure better trade terms and end the era of unilateral tariff and non tariff trade barriers imposed on the USA, often by our ‘allies’.
Sure and he should invoke them. But this idiotic disgrace of a political decision still needs to be exposed, cogently and clearly. I would again recommend that at the State of the Union address, along with making his own case. The arrogance of the Court’s blatant politicking and power grab is particularly galling. This pattern of idiotic politically biased statutory interpretation needs to be noted and challenged in public debate.
The decision is correct and there is no political bias involved. The dissent is politically biased, since the same three justices upheld the major questions doctrine when it was Biden, but ignore it when it’s Trump.
Uh huh, one can see the political bias leaping from the opening of Kavanaugh’s dissent:
“Acting pursuant to his statutory authority to ‘regulate
. . . importation’ under the 1977 International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, the President has imposed
tariffs on imports of foreign goods from various countries.
The tariffs have generated vigorous policy debates. Those
policy debates are not for the Federal Judiciary to resolve.
Rather, the Judiciary’s more limited role is to neutrally
interpret and apply the law. The sole legal question here is
whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate . . .
importation.’ Statutory text, history, and precedent
demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas
and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to
regulate importation.”
Now, if you’re looking for bias Milhouse, you’ve found it in the decision of 3 justices to rely on the Major Questions Doctrine. A doctrine that has no application in light of the clear authorization of Congress to impose tariffs under IEEPA and, as further noted in the Kavanaugh dissent, has NEVER been used in the context of foreign affairs where “courts read the statute as written and do not employ the major questions doctrine as a thumb on the scale against the President.”
Reading the Kavanaugh dissent is an education. I suggest you actually read it.
Agreed. Trump needs to come out swinging on this during the SOTU. Playing nice guy is not going to make his case. At the same time, he should not use derogatory sniping to get his point across in order avoid having to spend precious time cleaning up afterwards.
I absolutely agree. A cogent and clear dressing down is in order. No hyperbole is needed. Simply exposing this flawed thinly veiled policy oriented decision to the public critical review it deserves is enough.
if bad polices lead to people being refunded then where are our millions that we have lost to the bad policies supporting affirmaction etc!!!!??
this is all bs all the time and the
never trumpers/rinos/leftists know a great pr plot when they create one
This is how DJT fights. Bravo, Mr. President.
Leave a Comment